Perhaps none of them have landlines, which are the preferred medium of pollsters. I don’t think they let you matriculate anymore if you can’t show proof of ownership of a cell phone. 
Here’s a report from Colorado, where a Denver Post poll shows Obama with a 2-point lead, less than the 3.5% MOE, in a poll taken last Monday through Wednesday. Plus a look at the GOP side:
Seriously, I have much less faith in the polls this time around. Really none of the polls have been terribly accurate.
NH was supposed to to for BO by 8 points but didn’t
NV was supposed to go much more for Hillary but didn’t
SC was supposed to be within 10 points, BO was supposed to only get 10 percent of the white vote but instead he won by 28 and got 25 percent of the white vote.
What I think is going on here is that younger people are actually making some effort to get out and vote. I think it is going to matter once and for all. How can pollsters even really rely on phone numbers now? I have a MS area code and live in New York for 6 months now. I’ll probably never change my number. If someone wanted to poll me, they’d assume that I lived in MS I guess. Loads of people living in NYC that moved up here from somewhere else also do the same. Why should I ever change my number ever again? I won’t.
So I don’t know how they find their respondents, but they will be increasingly older as time goes on as people in my generation don’t have land lines. I’m not saying these polls in the Feb 5 states will go for Barack because of this, but at the very least I realize now that something isn’t right here. The polls are very wrong this time around.
BTW, I don’t really see how Ted Kennedy is such a huge deal. I certainly HOPE that it will be but I don’t know. One thing i find interesting is that someone characterized it as a huge loss for Clinton considering the overtures Bill made for Ted back in the day.
Finally, I don’t see Gore endorsing. Not before it’s all said and done. Gore has transcended Democratic party politics, if not US politics. He would possibly endorse someone who was very green but nobody seems to stand out in that regard here. The only thing I could see as being important for Gore would be that he feels that the Clintons are dangerous and must be stopped. I don’t know if he would even care though because ultimately he needs to be on the good side of the future President.
Yeah, I was referring to land lines. Not a single one of my friends in NY, CA, or OR has a land line. Normally, the 18-29 bracket is a fairly insignificant portion of the primary electorate, but that doesn’t appear to be the case this time.
I know some polls adjust for this by inflating the value of those younger folks they do manage to reach with a land line, but that does make the polls less accurate when predicting how they will vote. And only recently have they begun to increase the number of expected young voters based on the turnouts in Iowa and New Hampshire.
I wish the pollsters were more open about methodology, so I could discount the ones that aren’t trying to account for this phenomenon.
Time Magazine’s Mark Halperin outlines Six Reasons Why the Kennedy Endorsement is a Big Deal
Maybe they’re from out of state and not voting in MA?
Good point. Hard to say what proportion. Most people I know registered to vote where they attended college, but that may not be representative. The increase in college voters presents numerous problems for pollsters, I would think. First, you’ve got these populations of voters not living in the state they will be voting in. They truly are off the polling map. And second a lot of college students, if they wanted to vote for Obama in the primary, probably just registered in whatever state they are attending school in relatively recently.
Yeah, I wouldn’t be surprised if 18-24 year olds with landlines were no longer representative of 18-24 year olds generally, in a whole bunch of ways. And if that’s the case, just adjusting to expected vote shares, even if they’re accurate, won’t help much.
California may just turn out not to be a lock for Hillary after all. San Francisco Chronicle endorses Barack Obama
Do endorsements make much difference? I know that the only time I’ve ever paid attention to them is in a negative way about the endorser, not a positive way about the endorsee. “You endorsed Joe Schmoe? Ha! I’ll never buy your paper AGAIN!”
I think they do, or can, anyway. Especially in California where there are still apparently 20% of voters who are undecided going into Super Tuesday. Especially because it shows that the momentum is really taking hold, and may just prove to let people know that it’s not a given that the nomination in this state is locked up, and not fruitless for them to bother to show up and vote.
The Los Angeles Daily News endorsed Obama today, too.
Ted Kennedy’s endorsement is big precisely because it COULD make inroads for Obama in the Latino community. That’s a blow to the Clinton camp, for sure. The Obama camp would need to capitalize on that and fast. Obama doesn’t even have to win, but just stay close in CA. MA could open up, too. If polls shift toward that, Clinton would be forced to work harder to remain competitive in IL where she is being hammered by Obama. GA could be a potential problem for Clinton, too.
My take, though is that it’s too little, too late.
Watch Florida on Tuesday. It’s a real bellwether state. No campaigning by the Dems, so they have the national impression. It’s an extremely representative state, more Latino than Black, more conservative than liberal. And it’s likely a must win to carry the country (not absolutely, but close). I think whoever wins here on Tuesday will carry the following Tuesday. I have no idea who will win here on the Democrat side, I think Romney has a decent chance to win the Republican side, although McCain will keep it close. Giuliani will leave the race after Tuesday, or at least he should.
Well, first of all, Hillary is now openly campaigning there based on her claim that Obama broke the pledge. So the outcome will reflect that she is the only one campaigning.
But even if that weren’t so, a lack of campaigning by all parties does not a representative sample make. Everywhere that Obama has campaigned he has gained dozens of points, whereas Hillary makes only modest gains. That shouldn’t be surprising since voters know Hillary much better.
I would agree that Florida would be an important bellweather, and one that Obama would likely lose in a fair fight, but in this election it is not because the state party broke the rules.
Cite? I know that Obama has ads running across the entire state of Florida. I’m not aware of any activities similar to this. If you’re referring to conference calls to supporters (touching base with supporters)- I don’t think that’s even comparable to advertisments (asking for votes from the entire electorate).
From what I understand, placing advertisments that asks for votes, which is what the Obama camp is doing, IS campaigning.
Heh, didn’t we just have this debate, Anduril?
Hardly a campaign, if you asked me. It still doesn’t rise to the level of an advertisment in scope. And we’re not debating about propriety, now. I understand your position on that and I disagree. What we’re discussing is your statement that only Clinton is campaigning in Florida which is patently false.
No reasonable person thinks that Obama is now campaigning in Texas, Louisiana, Hawaii, Alaska, etc. etc. There is a world of difference between personally campaigning in a state as Hillary has decided to do (of which today’s events are only the beginning–she has been booking large venues), and showing a national ad that happens to run on CNN in a state. Surely you see that difference. Or do you maintain that Obama is right now campaigning in North Dakota?
More importantly, she’s calling for the Florida delegates to be seated. Of course she’s going to get more support from Florida democrats based on that pandering.
Yes. An advertisment IS a campaign. Until I see Hillary do stump speeches in Florida and go door to door, I won’t consider that campaigning. That the SC Democratic chair allowed Obama to advertise doesn’t change the definition of “campaign” all of a sudden.
Florida will be meaningless when Obama takes California. California Teachers block early Hillary endorsement. . .
From a very practical POV this will end up hurting HRC more than helping her and seems an act of desperation. She is fairly overtly thumbing it at the DNC leadership in her bid to get some bounce from FLA and maybe get them seated and thereby delegates from states where she essentially ran uncontested.
It will win support in FLA but that will translate into zero bounce she was uncontested, and any superdelegates who had still been on the fence will likely get quite annoyed at her overt siding against their right to control the tempo of the primaries.
FLA and MI might get to seat delegates … after the nomination is already secured … or not. But the superdelegates will have votes that count for sure.